Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

20% of that land is mine and only remaining 9% or less will be GC owned.

Also I am not sure about your maths here. 20% is yours and 9% is ours???? What are you talking about? So who owns the rest 71%? The Chinese?

In north Cyprus 82% is ours and 18% is yours. That is how it is.

The distribution will change to approx 29%north 71%south, because your leaders are negotiating a BBF right now and this was agreed as far back as 1977, please try to change it now Id love to see the reaction of the international community.

The % split is pretty much constant in all negotiations and those GCs like you who do not want to live in the north can sell up or keep their properties renting them out if they can be physically returned, the difference is made up of TCs who have built their lives on exchanged land and do not want to go south to reclaim land surrendered to the TRNC government, this is where the problem lies and will have to be solved imo opinion by financial compensation or exchange for TC land in the south this will take the total figure of TC land in the south to a minimum and the exchanged/compensated land to around 18% add to this the GC owned land, plus state land and you will arrive at a figure which has been on the table throughout previous negotiations 29%.

82% of north Cyprus belongs to us, and you are minority in that region of Cyprus like you are in every other. Your ethnic cleansing tactics will not work. You can't have a Turkish state on land that belongs by 82% to GCs and where GCs have a history 10 times longer than what you do.

If we were willing to make an exchange of land, that would mean a split of 82%-18%, not 29%-71%.

You are going to be a very disappointed man, what will you do when the details are let out about the %? will you vote no if the north state is between 25-29%???

You still need to grasp what a BBF entails, 2 founding states with political equality, what so wrong living under TC administration why is OK for me to be forced into a GC state and not the other way around at least my way people will have the choice to move and live where ever they wish unlike yours where you wish to place the whole island under GC control.

There will never be a north state of 25%-29% simply because we will not agree for such thing and without our agreement your pseudo will remain pseudo, and the whole Cyprus will remain territory of Republic of Cyprus.

If you want to live in a Turkish state you are free to go to Turkey. Cyprus is a Cypriot state and will be ruled democratically, one man one vote, by Cypriots. If you don't like the fact that you are a minority in Cyprus blame it on yourselves. It is you who invaded our island in order to force your rule over us, and then transferred population here creating a minority. We never wanted to rule any Turks. Just to rule our own island in a democratic way.

What will you do when the 2 states north and south have been put on the table? Feel free to reject yet another UN approved plan as that is your right.

We are not going anywhere and have just as much right to be here as you do.

[Viewpoint]

The distribution will change to approx 29%north 71%south, because your leaders are negotiating a BBF right now and this was agreed as far back as 1977,

Viewpoint

The 25-29% for TCs was discussed only in the context of a BBF of the nature that Makarios considered back in 1977, where the TC "area" would effectively be just a district or municipality (not a near-sovereign state as is discussed today) and where all GCs would return to their homes and be a majority even within the TC district (although not voting for the TC "local authorities" elections), with a GC president and TC vice-president.

If TCs want a greater degree of sovereignty then they will need to take a lower proportion of land. At the extreme of 2 equal, con-federal states (if GCs ever accepted this), the land ratio would of course need to be 82:18.

This a well-established and widely used concept in international politics called "land for sovereignty".

I agree with you that Christofias is currently discussing something that goes against the above. 30 years of GC leaders stupidly yielding more and more while Turks instead increasing their demands have resulted in discussions of effectively a confederation (per Annan) at the original land ratio.

What you need to realise however is that these incapable GC leaders have done all this behind the back of the GC people - throughout this time they have been promising that all refugees will go home and reclaim their properties, full human rights, 1 truly unified country etc.

As a referendum approval is needed, TCs will need to agree to either a true united federal country with full human rights, or if they insist on disguised, Annan-type partition, agree to a fair sharing of the land i.e. around 80:20 (which I believe is the only realistic way of getting both communities to say Yes at referendum).

It is in Turkish side's interest to realise the above as soon as possible. In the opposite case, GCs simply have no reason to agree to such a solution (as Page 1 of this thread shows clearly i.e. the benefits of the proposed change are all for the TCs). The status quo will continue until Turks realise this, with TCs remaining a pariah and Turkey firmly outside the EU.

Tony I dont believe Turkey will ever get into the EU as they are not European and do not have the vision or will to change in order to fit into the mould of the EU be it good or bad. Not being in the EU is not the end of the world there are still many countries around the world who do not belong to a union such as the EU but are still very sucessful.

A 20% 80% split for TCs equals agreed division but can you kindly name one other country where the land split % has been agreed via a population count?

You really have to understand that any solution will be a BBF where some GCs who want to return will have to live under a TC administration and some TCs under a GC administration, why do you want to force everyone to live under a GC admin where we can create a situation where the choice is left upto the individual by they GC or TC in origin?

Our leaders are right now trying to agree a "true" BBF but this true BBF differs from person to person so they will try to get as many people to support it as possible but dont forget many people will also be outside of this equation but have to accept the outcome as decided by both sides as there are 2 sides with equal weight which have to agree to a change on this island.

[Tony-4497]

What cannot be solved TODAY is passed on to the next generations, and they in turn will pass an unsolved problem onto the next… until the end of time if needed!

This strategy, which is my preferred one, might work if all GCs thought in the same way. Unfortunately they do not.

The leadership of the 2 major parties (DYSI & AKEL) have accepted, and are working very hard to convince people to accept, the Annan plan (or a version thereof).

I believe there is a high chance that, at a second referendum on a similar plan, they will achieve a Yes from GCs. This would be through inflating the benefits of such a plan, misleading the public, controlling the media, exercising pressure on voters etc - especially considering that AKEL voters usually do as told, this is a very real prospect.

Such a solution would be infinitely worse than an 82:18 partition, with proper guarantees. It will most likely end in the same result (i.e. full partition) and not only will it hand out 30% of land and 50% of coastine to the Turks, but it will also lead us to lose our sovereign country and UN/ EU member status (not to mention risk of bloodshed when the complex power sharing arrangements collapse).

In practical terms: GC leadership should continue to strive for a true united Cyprus etc, but aslo at the same time:

1. Realise that the solutions they are currently negotiating will most certainly lead to partition.

2. Act accordingly i.e. immediately place parameters that will be important in an ultimate partition as the TOP priorities/ red lines in the negotiations - these parameters are (a) the land sharing ratio (i.e we should state we will not discuss any solution giving TCs more than 20%) and (b) Cast iron security/ guarantees

It is good to "hope for the best". But a leader who is naive or stupid enough to fail to "plan for the worst" could mean disaster for a country.

[Get Real!]

What cannot be solved TODAY is passed on to the next generations, and they in turn will pass an unsolved problem onto the next… until the end of time if needed!

This strategy, which is my preferred one, might work if all GCs thought in the same way. Unfortunately they do not.

That’s what you and I, and others, are here for… to teach them!

[Medman]

From Cyprus-Mail today by Jean Christou- Main Headline.

ONLY 18 per cent of Greek Cypriots and 13 per cent of Turkish Cypriots are hopeful for a Cyprus solution through the current peace process, a study by the Centre for European Policy Studies said yesterday.

The Brussels-based organisation worked with analysts Alexandros Lordos, Erol Kaymak and Nathalie Tocci to compile the 90-page report, which was presented yesterday.

“Beyond their perceptions and (mis)trust of each other, both communities are pessimistic regarding the peace process,” said the report.

This pessimism is particularly acute amongst Turkish Cypriots, who following the Annan Plan precedent have little faith in the peace process and Greek Cypriot willingness to deliver a compromise solution. Greek Cypriots, emboldened by their new president, appear somewhat more hopeful of the ongoing negotiations.”

It said that after decades of failed negotiations and the ultimate failure of the Annan Plan, Cypriots viewed renewed efforts to reach an agreement with some caution.

Lack of trust was a major factor according to the findings.

Two out of three Greek Cypriots, “possibly influenced by their long-standing political narrative that ‘our problem is not with the Turkish Cypriots but with Turkey’, say they trust ordinary Turkish Cypriots, while 99 per cent do not trust the Turkish Cypriot leadership nor Turkey.

However nearly three out of four Turkish Cypriots say they mistrust Greek Cypriots, and 74 per cent say they mistrusted President Demetris Christofias and political party leaders.

Still, while differences are large Cypriots were open to compromise, ready to revisit their official historical narratives and abhor a resort to violence, the report said.

“This sets Cyprus apart from other conflicts in the European neighbourhood,” it added.

“Cypriots are not fundamentally hostile towards each other and both communities have reached a level of political maturity necessary to re-evaluate their conflict-ridden pasts.”

It said 85 per cent off Greek Cypriots and 50 per cent of Turkish Cypriots were able to acknowledge the mistakes committed by their own community in the conflict.

Nearly 90 per cent on each side are “absolutely opposed to the idea of ‘solving’ the conflict through armed struggle”.

Only 15 per cent on the Greek Cypriot side say they are satisfied with the status quo, and even fewer Turkish Cypriots, less than ten per cent.

“A possible explanation of these differences may be that whereas 51 per cent of Greek Cypriots are on the whole satisfied with their personal lives, only 29 per cent of Turkish Cypriots are, not least because they are more directly affected by the consequences of the conflict,” said the report, adding that they blamed Greek Cypriots and the EU for their current situation due to the ban on direct flights to the north, and the lack of direct trade for the ‘TRNC’.

“It is of paramount importance for these issues to be debated openly and creatively in the south and for political and official actors to diffuse and repackage the divisive and polarising language used to discuss these issues in recent years,” said the report.

On the positive side, large majorities of each community view themselves as being both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot rather than merely Greek or Turkish.

“In other words, Greek and Turkish Cypriots tend not to identify themselves as Greeks or Turks exclusively, and both communities share an affinity to Cyprus,” the report said.

It suggests a number of confidence building measures to run parallel to the new negotiating process “to engender public confidence” and to ensure that when an agreement is reached, Cypriots will go along with it.

A list of ‘easily-agreed measures’ could include jointly fighting organised crime, joint participation in international sporting events, joint protection of cultural heritage, supporting Turkish-Cypriot-EU harmonisation and renovating and making joint use of buildings in the Green Line.

Other confidence-building steps could be taken to facilitate negotiations on the more contested issues such as conducting an analysis of threats and threat perceptions and producing an economic development plan for post-settlement.

These fact-finding activities would both increase public confidence in the peace process – which will be viewed as a result of such efforts as more participatory, inclusive and grounded on the needs of the people – and at the same time may help bridge the gaps dividing the two communities on some of the most contested dossiers of the conflict settlement agenda,” said the CEPS report.

It also listed a number of more contentious proposals such as including the north in the EU customs union and including Turkish Cypriot higher education institutions in the European higher education system, direct trade and direct flights, and the resolution of the Varosha issue.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008

[Tony-4497]

Tony I dont believe Turkey will ever get into the EU as they are not European and do not have the vision or will to change in order to fit into the mould of the EU

I hope you're wrong, for your sake and ours, because the EU prospect is the sole reason Turkey might seek a solution for Cyprus - or consider to just maybe honour any commitments it will make in case of an actual solution. If you are right, then there is simply no hope for any change in Cyprus (we will just have to wait for a few more decades until the "balance of power changes", per other users of this forum)

A 20% 80% split for TCs equals agreed division but can you kindly name one other country where the land split % has been agreed via a population count?

I can't think of any countries that had been divided in this way - in the cases I know the population seeking partition/ independence had a historic claim to the specific area it wanted i.e. had been a majority in that areas for many hundreds of years (e.g. Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavia, Russia, oh, and Kurdistan). The occupied part of Cyprus had been Greek in its majority for thousands of years until 74.

As there is no such basis (i.e. historic claim), then the only reasonable basis for "agreed division" might be population (18%) or land ownership percentage (even lower).

Importantly, an "agreed division" would need to "feel" fair - otherwise it will be a recipe for further bloodshed - not to mention the need for both communities to vote for it at referendum in the first place.

You really have to understand that any solution will be a BBF where some GCs who want to return will have to live under a TC administration and some TCs under a GC administration, why do you want to force everyone to live under a GC admin where we can create a situation where the choice is left upto the individual by they GC or TC in origin?

If the proposed solution was a federation like the one Makarios initially agreed - say like the US - where I could have back all my property in the north, all Cypriots had full human rights (movement, settlement, ownership throughout Cyprus), where a federal government I could trust guaranteed my safety and equal treatment throughout Cyprus etc, then I would not have a problem with the TC-administered area having an area of 25-29% or with living under TC admin.

Turkish demands for a near-sovereign "founding" state and restrictions on basic human righs, however, mean that the above does not apply - which turns the whole thing into a zero-sum game i.e. the more the area given to TCs the more GCs (who come from that area) suffer and vice-versa.

In this context, I am adamant that the % for TCs is proportional to their population for a basic sense of fairness to exist in any solution.

[Viewpoint]

Tony-4497

I hope you're wrong, for your sake and ours, because the EU prospect is the sole reason Turkey might seek a solution for Cyprus - or consider to just maybe honour any commitments it will make in case of an actual solution. If you are right, then there is simply no hope for any change in Cyprus (we will just have to wait for a few more decades until the "balance of power changes", per other users of this forum)

You are right without Turkeys EU prospective we can all kiss goodbye to any momentum towards a solution, it will also remove any leverage this allows GCs to get what they want. So its really more important for GCs than those TCs who do not believe a solution will be ever reached.

I can't think of any countries that had been divided in this way - in the cases I know the population seeking partition/ independence had a historic claim to the specific area it wanted i.e. had been a majority in that areas for many hundreds of years (e.g. Czechoslovakia, former Yugoslavia, Russia, oh, and Kurdistan). The occupied part of Cyprus had been Greek in its majority for thousands of years until 74.

As there is no such basis (i.e. historic claim), then the only reasonable basis for "agreed division" might be population (18%) or land ownership percentage (even lower).

Importantly, an "agreed division" would need to "feel" fair - otherwise it will be a recipe for further bloodshed - not to mention the need for both communities to vote for it at referendum in the first place.

There are no countries where after a war the distribution of land is based on population ratios, it is agreed by the victor and the rest of the world or alternatively between the victor and loser who wishes to cut its loses and save what it has left.

We have in place now division recognized or not left unnegotiated it will either remain as is or be recognized over time.

If the proposed solution was a federation like the one Makarios initially agreed - say like the US - where I could have back all my property in the north, all Cypriots had full human rights (movement, settlement, ownership throughout Cyprus), where a federal government I could trust guaranteed my safety and equal treatment throughout Cyprus etc, then I would not have a problem with the TC-administered area having an area of 25-29% or with living under TC admin.

Turkish demands for a near-sovereign "founding" state and restrictions on basic human righs, however, mean that the above does not apply - which turns the whole thing into a zero-sum game i.e. the more the area given to TCs the more GCs (who come from that area) suffer and vice-versa.

In this context, I am adamant that the % for TCs is proportional to their population for a basic sense of fairness to exist in any solution.

TCs also have to compromise so a final solution will incorporate a lot of what you have stated and what I always support 2 states with level playing fields allowing all its citizens to decide for themselves where they wish to reside. What do you suggest should be put in place to deter either side from adhering to the agreement as was the case in the past.

[Nikitas]

EU aspirations are not the only incentive for Turkey to leave Cyprus.

Erdogan said it clearly two years ago "if they tell us to take our army out of there we wil". It only takes someone demonstrably stronger to get them to leave. At some point there will be conflicts of interest that will want them out. And they will leave. It is the fate of conquests to end like that. Britain was a much stronger power than Turkey will ever be, and they left.

The problem is not a GC problem. It concerns the TCs and whether they want to survive as a community or not. It is their last chance and not ours, they are the ones faced with a decision.

[Viewpoint]

EU aspirations are not the only incentive for Turkey to leave Cyprus.

Erdogan said it clearly two years ago "if they tell us to take our army out of there we wil". It only takes someone demonstrably stronger to get them to leave. At some point there will be conflicts of interest that will want them out. And they will leave. It is the fate of conquests to end like that. Britain was a much stronger power than Turkey will ever be, and they left.

The problem is not a GC problem. It concerns the TCs and whether they want to survive as a community or not. It is their last chance and not ours, they are the ones faced with a decision.

Do you think that Turkey leaving will solve everything? Britain is not a very good example as they are still around they have not gone completely.

We decided in 1974 that it was a future with Turkey rather than the GCs without a solution and over time we will be more Turkish than Cypriot this is a natural process, the problem as I see it for Gcs will be do they want to unite with a population which is more akin to Turkey than Cyprus? Who have nothing in common or share no past with GCs. You will be begging for partition.

[CopperLine]

EU aspirations are not the only incentive for Turkey to leave Cyprus.

Erdogan said it clearly two years ago "if they tell us to take our army out of there we wil". It only takes someone demonstrably stronger to get them to leave. At some point there will be conflicts of interest that will want them out. And they will leave. It is the fate of conquests to end like that. Britain was a much stronger power than Turkey will ever be, and they left.

The problem is not a GC problem. It concerns the TCs and whether they want to survive as a community or not. It is their last chance and not ours, they are the ones faced with a decision.

Do you think that Turkey leaving will solve everything? Britain is not a very good example as they are still around they have not gone completely.

We decided in 1974 that it was a future with Turkey rather than the GCs without a solution and over time we will be more Turkish than Cypriot this is a natural process, the problem as I see it for Gcs will be do they want to unite with a population which is more akin to Turkey than Cyprus? Who have nothing in common or share no past with GCs. You will be begging for partition.

All this reminds me of boiling frogs ... it is said that if you place a frog in a pan of cool water and gradually turn up the heat that the frog will become accustomed to higher and higher temperatures, not noticing until it is too late that boiling is not good for its health. It should have jumped some time ago, but the realisation of danger and the moment of death are the same.

In Cyprus both 'sides' have become accustomed to their positions and ways. Neither side has suffered any dramatic turn which would jolt them out of their complacency. On the contrary, albeit at different rates and in different ways, each side's position has improved (in its own terms) since the catastrophe/salvation of 1974. There is no urgency, there is no cataclysm to avoid, there is no compelling incentive for either side to make headway towards re-unification. If the current negotiations fail, so what ? At best another 35 years of division, at worst a confirmation of partition. The moment to jump was way back, the end game has already been played.

Or is this too pessimistic ?